I was pleasantly surprised that the main reason for the FBI investigation wasn't "oh noes child porn!" It would be really sad if child porn was the only way to get the authorities to look at misconduct like this.
The problem with computer misuse laws is that they often come down to proving intent. That's why you'll see a lot of computer criminals being hauled up for fraud etc. simply because it is easier to prosecute them for it.
In this case they have a clear intent to spy (especially as it looks like they have been spying). So it looks like the right laws will get applied.
I think it would be extremely difficult to prosecute them with CP laws anyway.
The cameras were only activated in the case of missing laptops and the school district says they never broke that policy.
It sounds to me like the kid reported the computer stolen and was caught using it. The "Improper behavior at home" is probably just how they could punish the kid within the framework of their student handbook.
Good point. The plaintiff lawyers are almost certainly doing this at least in part for a piece of the action and wouldn't bother unless they thought they had a case. If the family is putting up all the money, it would be, as you point out, not even vaguely worth it if the school's story is the truth.
On the other hand, you can imagine the fury of the parents if their story is true, that the school was randomly spying on the students and careless with what they saw. That would make it worth their while to put together such an effort.
Prosecution depends on what pics the staff were emailing around. If forensics turns up salacious pictures, along with inept cover ups that demonstrate intent, then the fishing expedition starts. Depending on how out of control the school was, the Feds could end up with an open-ended fishing expedition into staff home computers and a warehouse full of evidence.
As used as a term of art "fishing expedition" just isn't correct usage here. Those are searches etc. that are based on a pretext and are looking for anything possible to zap someone.
In this case, we are presuming that a broad based search won't happen unless and until evidence of real violations are found, upon which the FBI will naturally want to discover the scope of them.
Even then, to search an individual's home computer without any evidence the individual was engaged in wrongdoing would in theory not hold up in court. But the FBI is famously abusive and publicity hungry and "child p0rn is the root password to the US Constitution".
1. A prissy, overbearing administrator did this carefully, with due attention to privacy of records.
2. Misuse of the webcams was rife and uncontrolled. School staff were emailing funny webcam captures with no regard for privacy, public opinion, or self preservation. The investigation will rapidly turn into "copy every hard drive touched by a staff member". I.e., a fishing expedition.
No, it's only a fishing expedition if the copying is done on a pretext to find something, anything to "get" someone with.
If the extreme of #2 occurred, it would only be sane to copy every disk drive to preserve evidence. Given the real cost of examining disk images (especially for deleted pictures), I wouldn't be surprised if the searches wouldn't then be driven real evidence ... although I suppose after capturing metadata it would be easy to see "who has or had a copy of this picture or video".
But even then, even if abusive in scope, it's not a fishing expedition.
A fishing expedition is when you want to prosecute person A and don't have any reason to. So you go and search & surveil until something is discovered that they can be prosecuted for. If the administrators were shown to be sending files around, and if their is evidence that they also used their home computers to conduct the monitoring then those systems too will be searched.
Well of course; but if that's what they find would you not agree CP laws would start to apply :)
Your right about the fishing trip though. In this case, while I disagree in general with open ended investigations, I'd support it - great punishment in a way to invade the privacy of these people, see how the like it :) (I know that's a somewhat petty attitude).
Well, that's because it appears to be based on spying that the plaintiff claims mistook candy for drugs.
But I'm sure that child porn is firmly in the background: if or more administrators were abusing the web cam feature such that they saw the above, you know they'll have been seeing students without all their clothes on (or likely at least this student, if it just so happens this was the only spying incident and it was based on a prior report of his doing drugs or whatever).
Sounds like a situation that calls for some small pieces of tape to cover the built in camera and mike.
The article I got didn't say anything about the FBI, only that the school official was defended by the district. Title: "Pa. school official defended in webcam spy case"
Yeah, the AP story has been replaced on more than one site.
Search for
MARYCLAIRE DALE FBI probing Pa. school webcam spy case
and you'll find a copy of the original one (MARYCLAIRE DALE is the author; fortunately my outbox has an email I sent to some friends that quoted some of the article).
